the role of benevolent leadership in … · web viewtitle the role of benevolent leadership in...

CREATING VIRTUOUS AND COMPASSIONATE ORGANIZATIONS

The Role of Leadership in Creating Virtuous and Compassionate Organizations:

Narratives of Benevolent Leadership in an Anatolian Tiger

Abstract:

This study explores the role and potential of benevolent leadership in creating virtuous and

compassionate organizations. A number of small and medium enterprises in Turkey, also

called “The Anatolian Tigers”, have been experimenting with new ways of incorporating care

and compassion at work. The study uses narrative inquiry to explore how benevolent

leadership enhances collective performance and wellbeing in Anatolian Tigers. The paper

reviews and integrates four streams of research associated with creating common good in

organizations: Spirituality, morality, positivity, and community, and links each of these

elements to creating virtuous and compassionate organizations through narrative inquiry. The

paper proposes that benevolent leadership can contribute to the long term health and

sustainability of organizations through its four elements: spiritual depth, ethical sensitivity,

positive engagement, and community responsiveness.

Keywords: Leadership, Virtue Ethics, Anatolian Tigers, Benevolent Leadership, Community,

Compassion, Narrative Inquiry, Spirituality, Virtues, Positive Organizational Scholarship

1


The Role of Leadership in Creating Virtuous and Compassionate Organizations:

Narratives of Benevolent Leadership in an Anatolian Tiger

As the leaves are falling and the wind is breezing in this central Anatolian city of

Kayseri, Nazife Tas, aged 70, is stirring a huge pot of chicken soup. Despite her age, she is

working hard to organize the cooking process, while her children and grandchildren help her

with the chores. Nazife Tas is the mother of Salih Tas, the owner of a small family company

called Bereket operating in the textiles industry. Nazife Tas is cooking “iftar” dinners for all

company employees throughout the month of Ramadan. “Ramadan is the month we celebrate

compassion in our lives. We love and revere all the creation because of our love for the

Creator”, she says. She considers herself as the mother of all employees working there and

everyone loves and accepts her as their compassionate mother figure. 120 employees and

CEO Salih Tas break their fasting together at sunset; praying, eating, chatting, and laughing

side by side. This collective spiritual experience enhances members’ morale, belonging, and

respect for each other. Salih behaves as a benevolent leader as he works together with

employees towards organizational goals. As all organizational members feel as part of a big

authentic family, they go beyond their contractual obligations to contribute to the greater

good of Bereket.

The narrative above comes from field notes within a narrative inquiry study on

benevolent leadership in Turkey. To advance scholarship on virtue ethics in business and

management, this paper will bring together four streams of organizational research through a

higher-order model of benevolent leadership toward creating virtuous and compassionate

organizations, and illustrate the elements of this model using narrative inquiry at Bereket.

2


Bereket (a pseudonym; a Turkish word meaning blessing or abundance) is an

exemplar of a compassionate company that exhibits great care for its employees. In addition

to iftar dinners in Ramadan, Bereket offers its employees complimentary breakfasts and

lunches, free tickets for cultural events and concerts, a library, and a café where employees

can meet, relax, have fun, and spend time together. More importantly, Bereket supports all

educational and developmental needs of its employees so that they can pursue learning based

on their passions. Such spaces and opportunities foster positive attitudes in employees,

enhance their well-being and belonging, and stimulate their creativity. The company also

provides health coverage for employees’ family members and educational scholarship for

their children. These benefits enhance employees’ belonging and job satisfaction at work.

Employees take pride in working at Bereket; as expressed in the words of Hasan (35): “This

company is my family, my community. I intend to continue contributing to this community

until I die. And I want to die among these friends. I would decline a promotion elsewhere. I

just want to stay here and contribute.”

Employees come from diverse backgrounds, religions, and races. However, they have

a shared passion for being part of a valuable community. Bereket is an exception - a hidden

gem or a pearl - within the interconnected global economic system which pushes companies

to greater levels of competition and velocity. Yet, it represents a model of care and

compassion in organizations. A number of small and medium enterprises (SME) in Turkey,

such as Bereket, have been experimenting with new ways of incorporating care and

compassion at work. These enterprises, often called “The Anatolian Tigers” (Aycan, 1999;

Demir, Acar, & Toprak, 2004; Hosgor, 2011) have significantly contributed to the dispersal of

employment, wealth, production, growth, and local democracy in various Anatolian cities.

3


How can organizations flower the human spirit? How can managers design workplaces to

nourish the spirit of fellowship and compassion among all employees? How can leaders

create virtuous and compassionate organizations? This paper seeks to address these questions

through narrative inquiry conducted in Bereket, focusing on how benevolent leadership

enhances collective performance and wellbeing in Anatolian Tigers. In this paper, we explore

the role and potential of benevolent leadership in creating virtuous and compassionate

organizations.

We define benevolent leadership as the process of creating a virtuous cycle of

encouraging and initiating positive change in organizations through: (a) ethical decision

making, (b) creating a sense of meaning, (c) inspiring hope and fostering courage for positive

action, and (d) leaving a positive impact for the larger community. Benevolent leadership is

based on four streams of common good in organizational research: Morality, spirituality,

positivity, and community. This paper is based on the assumption that these four areas of

research can provide leadership scholars and practitioners a theoretically sound basis and a

wealth of knowledge to create virtuous and compassionate organizations. Extending on the

compassion definitions of Lilius et al. (2008), we consider compassionate organizations as

organizations that have the collective action capacities to notice, feel, and respond to the

suffering of its members as well as to improve the members’ states of wellbeing. We define

virtuous organizations as ones that foster virtues and virtuous behaviours as part of their

organizational culture and act as active corporate citizens in their day-to-day practices.

This paper aims to bring a new perspective on creating virtuous and compassionate

organizations through a benevolent leadership model. Benevolent leaders are those who

create observable benefits, actions, or results for the common good. The term “common

4


good” is used in the sense of shared benefits or positive outcomes for all or most members of

a community (Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Daly & Cobb, 1989), and is in keeping with the

definition of common good of the firm as the production of goods and services needed for

nourishing, in which different members participate through work (Sison & Fontrodona, 2011,

2012). Benevolent leaders exemplify whole-hearted and genuine actions at work that benefit

people around them. Therefore, they have an inclination to do good, to do kind or charitable

acts due to a felt obligation to use their developmental and intentional attributes of love and

charity.

This paper makes two key contributions to the advancement of scholarship on virtue

ethics in business and management. First it reviews four large bodies of research associated

with nurturing virtues in organizations: Spirituality, morality, positivity, and community, and

links these elements to creating virtuous and compassionate organizations. The paper

discusses and illustrates these links through narrative inquiry at Bereket. Second, the paper

proposes a theoretical model of benevolent leadership that directly results from the

intersection and combination of these four virtues.

The Quest for Virtuous and Compassionate Organizations

The call to understand and create virtuous and compassionate organizations is timely

and relevant for a number of reasons. First, there is a crisis of confidence and trust in

business organizations (Jenkins, 2003; Shanz, 2009; Walker, 2005); as demonstrated in the

10% public trust in large corporations (Zuboff, 2009). Specifically, this crisis of confidence is

manifested in corporate layoffs (Pugh, Sharlicki and Passell; 2003); psychological

disengagement of people from their work (Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Pech, 2009); a sense of

5


betrayal caused by downsizing (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003); organizational bullying and

mistreatment (Vickers, 2010), and ethical scandals and corruption (Waddock, 2004).

Unfortunately, we have been witnessing the continuing and routine failure of many

organizations and their leaders in responding adequately to these chronic and complex

problems. In addition, both the academic and professional literature on management is replete

with compelling examples of leaders who abuse power and act selfishly in business

organizations (Maccoby, 2000). This crisis of confidence in business organizations is also

manifested in the recent global financial crisis where the vicious cycle resulted in

overextension of credits, bankruptcy of large investment banks, declines in world stock

indexes, and increased unemployment and loss of jobs worldwide (Corkery & Hagerty, 2008).

Recent critics point to the moral problems and ethical roots of the crisis; such as uncontrolled

greed, which has resulted in a loss of confidence in the business community (Greenhalgh,

2008; Steenland & Dreier, 2008).

In addition to this context of broad disenchantment with business organizations, there

is increasing uncertainty and flux in today’s workplaces as a result of technology advances,

unexpected events (“coconut uncertainty”) and increasing global interdependence (Bolman &

Deal, 2008; Makridakis, Hogarth & Gaba, 2010). The waves of change sweeping the business

world include interlocking fragility, global interconnectivity, and heightened volatility

(Caslione, 2009; Kotter, 2008). Moreover, increasing complexity and interdependence

implies that change is becoming increasingly non-linear and unpredictable (Karakas, 2010).

The resulting competitive and economic pressures have led to intense cost cutting, massive

corporate downsizing, and increasing stress (Neal, Lichtenstein, & Banner, 1999). In the last

decade, four million jobs were cut by Fortune 500 firms, which caused severe emotional

6


damages for affected employees and families (victims), as well as for coworkers and

managers (survivors) who remained in their organizations (Cash & Gray, 2000; Pugh et al.

2003). Many downsizing and restructuring strategies in the past decades mean that the old

psychological contract, which offered job security in return for loyalty, is changing (Cappelli,

2008; Kriger & Hanson, 1999). Today’s leaders are now faced with employees whose

attitudes are not of trust and engagement; but of scepticism, fear and cynicism (O'Bannon,

2001; Pelletier & Bligh, 2008). Moreover, employees need to deal with toxic decision

processes (Maitlis & Ozcelik, 2004), necessary evils which cause harm to others (Molinsky &

Margolis, 2005), and negative emotions as a result of toxic interactions with colleagues or

managers (Frost, 2003) throughout their everyday experiences at work. The need for care and

compassion is echoing in every organization today as the long term health of organizations is

being threatened. There is a deep need for creating virtuous and compassionate organizations

where employees feel more empowered and courageous to tackle the unique challenges of the

21st century.

Virtues have recently become a significant topic of examination among organizational

researchers who are exploring their role in creating more progressive, compassionate, and

humane work environments. As organizations which have long been viewed as rational

systems are considering making room for emotions, meaning, spirituality and community

(Ashmos & Duchon, 2000); researchers have been calling for more theories and research on

creating virtuous organizations (Manz, Cameron, Manz, and Marx, 2006; Neubert, 2011).

In parallel to this growing interest in virtues, management disciplines have been

witnessing an explosion of interest in care and compassion issues. The topic of compassion in

organizations has been receiving increased attention in the literature as evidenced by the fact

7


that several well-known journals have covered the topic (e.g. Organizational Dynamics,

Academy of Management Review, and, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences).

Organizational researchers have been calling for more theories and research on creating

compassionate organizations (Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, & Margolis, 2010; Tsui, 2010). The

theme of the 2010 Academy of Management Meeting in Montréal, Canada, was passion and

compassion in management practice and research. The title “Dare to care” challenged

management theorists and practitioners to focus on passion and compassion in order to

enhance the wellbeing of all stakeholders. There have been more than 120 sessions

(professional development workshops or academic paper sessions) devoted to care and

compassion in the meeting. On the practice side, we have been witnessing a movement

toward business organizations with a socially responsive, progressive and humanitarian edge

(Esty & Winston, 2006; Hollender, Breen, & Senge, 2010; Hsieh, 2010; Savitz & Weber,

2006) as well as new models of social entrepreneurship combining profits, passion, and

compassion (Bornstein, 2007; Mair & Martí, 2006; Yunus, 2007). Nonetheless, there is still a

gap of theory and research on the process and dynamics of leadership aimed at creating

virtuous and compassionate organizations.

To understand how leaders contribute to the world around them, management scholars

have borrowed many concepts and theories from other disciplines to advance theories of

business ethics (Trevino, 1986), spirituality at work (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Mitroff &

Denton, 1999), positive organizational scholarship (Cameron, Dutton & Quinn, 2003),

appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1998), and corporate social responsibility

(Carroll, 1999). This variation has created a theoretical pluralism that has uncovered novel

ways to explain benevolence, care, and compassion in organizations. All of these fields

8


attempt to help leaders to better cope with the ethical, social, emotional, and spiritual

challenges of the competitive materialist business landscape, but eclectically integrating these

various fields into a broader framework of benevolent leadership has not yet occurred. The

confluence and synergy of all these fields through a model of benevolent leadership may

enable new perspectives on creating virtuous and compassionate organizations. Although

research conducted in these domains address the impact and responsibility of leaders in

organizations, they do not go far in illuminating how leaders can create virtuous and

compassionate organizations, which will be the central focus of the current paper. This paper

first attempts to ‘‘map the territory’’ by analyzing the contributions of these streams of

research to organizational care and compassion. Then it develops a model of benevolent

leadership and illustrates its potential to create virtuous and compassionate organizations

through the narrative inquiry study conducted at Bereket.

Conceptual Development

Beneficence is defined as “acts of mercy, kindness, and charity”, and it involves all

forms of action intended to benefit or promote the good of others (Beauchamp, 2008). While

beneficence refers to actions done to benefit others, benevolence refers to the morally

valuable character virtue of being disposed to act for the benefit of others (Beauchamp,

2008). The virtue of benevolence rests on the philosophic belief in the innate goodness of

humanity and the corresponding belief that humans have an obligation to use their natural

instincts of love and charity to help or do good to others.

This paper introduces a conceptual model of benevolent leadership based on four

streams of common good in organizational research:

9


(1) Spirituality stream, which is based on spirituality at work and spiritual leadership

literatures (the focus is on the inner landscapes and spiritual actions of leaders);

(2) Morality stream, which is based on business ethics, leadership values and ethics,

and ethical decision making literatures (the focus is on leaders’ ethics and values);

(3) Positivity stream, which is based on positive organizational scholarship and

strength-based approaches (the focus is on how leaders create positive change in

organizations and the world); and,

(4) Community stream, which is based on corporate social responsibility and corporate

citizenship literatures (the focus is on leaders’ contribution to society and community service).

We contend that the interplay between these four streams can provide a more

comprehensive understanding of how leaders can create care and compassion in organizations

and synthesizing them will lead to theoretical and practical insights on creating compassionate

and virtuous organizations. We believe such synthesis is useful in several ways. First, it is a

step toward a holistic theory generation on virtuous and compassionate organizations.

Second, the conceptual framework serves both normative and pragmatic functions. These

four streams provide practical guidelines for leaders to enable collective noticing, feeling, and

responding to suffering in organizations. Third, the resulting model underlines the

importance of taking all four dimensions into account while theorizing or researching on

organizational care and compassion.

Wang and Cheng (2009) discuss benevolent leadership as a paternalistic style of

leadership in Chinese cultural context where leaders show individualized care and concern for

subordinates in both work and non-work domains. Our conceptualization of benevolent

leadership is; however, distinct from this work because: a) the benevolent leadership construct

10


we propose is not necessarily culture-bound and it is applicable in diverse cultural contexts; b)

benevolent leadership construct presented here does not require paternalism as a key

conceptual ingredient, c) benevolent leadership model we propose brings together four

conceptual domains and builds on them to account for positive change in human systems. For

more detailed information on conceptualisation and measurement of benevolent leadership

that theoretically underpins this paper, readers may refer to (Authors, 2012, published

manuscript – reference hidden for anonymity).

The benevolent leadership model is conceptually distinct from other positive and

values-based leadership models such as ethical, spiritual, authentic, and servant leadership

because: a) it has an explicit focus on creating positive change in human systems; b) it

balances ethical, spiritual, transformational, and social concerns of leaders by encompassing

four aspects; c) it provides leaders guidance on how to create virtuous and compassionate

organizations. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual elements of benevolent leadership model by

contrasting and differentiating the model from other value-based leadership models.

------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

------------------------------------

Next, we review these four streams of organizational research and discuss their

implications for creating virtuous and compassionate organizations. We illustrate the linkages

and the application of benevolent leadership through the narrative inquiry study conducted at

Bereket. Figure 2 outlines the essence of these four streams in terms of their related

literatures, ideal leadership profiles, main gaps and problems, and leader behaviours.

11


------------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 about here

------------------------------------

Spirituality Stream

The spirituality stream of research, or “the spirituality movement”, focuses on

understanding employees’ spiritual needs, inner landscapes, and search for meaning. A large

number of employees today often feel psychological isolation and alienation at work (Bolman

& Deal, 1995); as well as a vacuum and a lack of meaning in their work lives (Dehler &

Welsh, 1994). Researchers mention that workplace spirituality has the potential to provide

leaders a feeling of purpose, a sense of connection and meaning at work (Bolman & Deal,

1995; Fry, 2003; Fry & Slocum, 2008; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003). Ashmos & Duchon

(2000) have described the spirituality movement as “a major transformation where

organizations which have long been viewed as rational systems are considering making room

for the spiritual dimension, a dimension that has less to do with rules and order and more to

do with meaning, purpose, and a sense of community” (p. 134). This new spiritual dimension

embodies leaders’ search for simplicity, meaning at work, more humane workplaces, self-

expression, and interconnectedness to something higher (Marques, Dhiman, & King, 2007).

Management theory has often linked spirituality to compassion; discussing compassion as one

of the most important spiritual values and as a path of spirituality (Driver, 2007; Kernochan,

McCormick, & White, 2007). Both spirituality and compassion are concerned with being

deeply interconnected with people and with the whole of life (McCormick, 1994). Acts of

compassion involve a deep feeling of opening the heart and allowing oneself to feel the

12


suffering in the world. The essential function of spirituality is also to lead to a path of

genuine love of people and a deep concern for others (Kernochan et al. 2007).

Morality Stream

The morality stream of research focuses on understanding the moral values and

principles of business leaders (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum & Kuenzi, 2012). Since the

1980s, researchers have focused more attention on the study of ethical attitudes and behaviors

of leaders in organizations and a useful body of research has been accumulated. The call for

incorporation of morality, ethics and values in management practice has gained momentum in

the last twenty years in parallel with increasing ethical concerns in organizational life (Kouzes

& Posner, 1993; Trevino, 1986; Trevino & Brown, 2004). Ethical sensitivity represents

leader’s process of moral reflection and consideration of what is right and wrong conduct at

work. We propose that leaders with higher ethical sensitivity will be more virtuous and

compassionate; which in turn will evoke more virtuous and compassionate behaviors in the

organization. Organizational theory supports that demonstrating higher ethical sensitivity and

enacting ethical principles at work is closely related to practicing care and compassion in

organizations (White, 1999).

Positivity Stream

The positivity stream is centered on how leaders can create and lead positive change in

organizations. The basic fields underlying this stream are appreciative inquiry and positive

organizational scholarship. These fields are called “strength based approaches” in

organizational sciences and were developed as a response to the dominant problem solving

approach in organizational sciences. By exploring life-giving capacities in organizations and

the world, appreciative inquiry makes deliberately affirmative assumptions about people,

13


organizations, and relationships (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1998). By focusing on the best of

the human condition, flourishing, and vitality in organizations, positive organizational

scholarship utilizes a broad spectrum of theories and concepts to explain and enable top

performance and excellence in organizations (Cameron et al., 2003). The common thread in

strength-based approaches is to improve the human condition by enabling and empowering

the human potential of employees.

There is considerable empirical evidence that positive actions at work lead to

tendencies to repeat or replicate these actions and this contagion effect leads to mutually

reinforcing cycles and positive spirals in human systems (Fredrickson, 2001; Seligman,

2002). When employees observe that leaders have positive engagement at work, they become

more inclined towards replicating this engagement through spending extra efforts to help

colleagues. They will also be more inclined to notice, feel, and respond to their suffering. In

turn, these positive spirals lead to collective flourishing and thriving (Cameron, Bright, &

Caza, 2004), resulting in a more compassionate organizational climate. Therefore, we propose

that leaders who are positively engaged will show more commitment to care and compassion

at work; which in turn will enable more virtuous and compassionate behaviors in the

organization.

Community Stream

The essence of the community stream is that leaders have societal obligations which

transcend economic functions of producing and distributing goods and generating profits for

their shareholders. The focus in the community stream is on stakeholder interests and societal

expectations on issues such as quality of life, societal wellbeing, and community service. The

community stream emphasizes the role of corporate leaders in addressing specific social

14


problems relating to education, employment, ecology, civil rights, arts, and sustainability. The

concept of corporate social responsibility was invented in 1950s, when academics and

practitioners first started to articulate the effects of businesses on society (Carroll, 1999).

Bowen’s (1953) “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman”, can be regarded as a milestone

in the early formation of the concept of social responsibility of leaders in organizations. The

“stakeholder management” concept was developed to address the concerns and expectations

of stakeholders who affect companies or who are affected by them (Clarkson, 1995). How

managers and corporations can successfully address the competing and diverse demands of

various stakeholder groups (customers, shareholders, suppliers, employees, NGOs, activists,

community, government, media..) is the central question here (Ogden & Watson, 1999).

Butcher and Harvey (1999) emphasize that corporate leaders have been re-examining,

questioning, and reinventing the very basis of our business organizations as they are

challenged by issues of human rights, fair trade, responsible marketing, local economic

development, and non-discriminatory employment practices.

We introduce the concept of community responsiveness to describe leaders’ roles and

responsibilities in solving social problems and contributing to society. Community

responsiveness entails leading organizations in ways that benefit the world and creating

effective responses to social needs and problems through innovative business solutions.

Community responsiveness is also related to actions such as creating caring communities with

strong trusting relationships (Russell, 2001), acting as agents of world benefit, health, peace,

wellbeing and global sustainability (Cooperrider & Dutton, 1999); developing global

awareness about world problems and solutions (Gladwin et al., 1995; Neal et al., 1999),

supporting synergy and inclusiveness among stakeholders (Ogden & Watson, 1999), and

15


building sustainable enterprises that connect industry, society, and the environment (Senge &

Carstedt, 2001).

Methodology

The investigation of care and compassion in organizations presents a challenge for

organizational researchers. This is due to the complex nature of care and compassion as

concepts and the contextual elements that influence their perceived meanings. As the literary

turn in social sciences has enabled re-discovering the narrative knowledge in organization

research (Czarniawska, 1998), there is an opportunity to harness the potential of narrative

inquiry to discover the emotional and spiritual landscape of organizational members. In

particular, the use of stories provides means to make sense of emotional experiences and the

narrative method is the most relevant research method to tap into the deep values and

spiritualities of organizational members.

This research has used narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Daiute &

Lightfoot, 2004) to analyze stories of employees and leaders at Bereket holistically and to

focus on the meanings that people ascribe to their lives and experiences in the selected

organization. Narrative inquiry uses interviews, life stories, autobiographies, journals, field

notes, conversations, photos, other artifacts, and life experiences (Clandinin & Connelly,

2000) as sources of data to create a holistically constructed narrative. Narrative inquiry has

been chosen as the research method because it can provide rich insights that shed light into

benevolent leadership in an organizational setting. As care and compassion are topics that are

complex and many-layered, narrative inquiry can surface hidden assumptions and values of

organizational members through stories. Analysis of people’s stories provides their own

perspectives and experiences of benevolent leadership in the context of an Anatolian tiger:

16


Bereket. Semi-structured interviews have been used to elicit people’s personal narratives of

compassion and allow more flexibility for respondents to tell their own stories. In narrative

inquiry, it is important that the respondents are given the time and space to tell their stories.

We have adopted a qualitative approach and used semi-structured interviews to give voice to

human feelings and experiences. We have conducted 32 interviews with managers,

employees, and other representative stakeholders. Open questions such as “What was it like

for you to experience compassion at work?” or “Can you tell me a specific example?” have

been asked to probe more details or to elicit personal narratives. Increasing the contextual

richness of storytelling has been an important feature of this narrative inquiry. The emergent

narratives offered opportunities for respondents from all levels of the organization to raise

their own voices, share their contextual understanding of their life stories, and participate in

knowledge construction (Mishler, 1991).

We have used interpretive phenomenological analysis as a guiding methodological

framework for analyzing the narratives found in interview data (Smith, Flowers, and Larkin,

2009); putting an emphasis on shared experiences and values to capture commonalities in

respondents’ views on what makes Bereket unique. Data analysis progressed from

transcription to the preparation of analytical and reflective memos, to independent iterative

coding, to comparison of the themes/categories across researchers, to central theme selection

and tentative narrative theme development, and to theme/coding verification. Following the

model of Plowman et al.(2007), we have used a predetermined (benevolent leadership)

framework as a guiding overall model in our narrative analysis; which is in contrast with

starting with a blank slate and using a grounded theory approach. We have used

beneficence/benevolence as a theoretical lens to identify representations and manifestations of

17


a class of virtues rooted in goodwill, generosity, and compassion directed at others in the

workplace. We have coded each narrative separately based on whether each of the benevolent

leadership themes or codes was present or not. We allowed for the possibility that more than

one theme might be present in each narrative. In instances where independent coding diverged

from one another, we have discussed the case further comparing respective interpretations

regarding the themes. As we have developed more robust patterns or more integrated story

lines, we triangulated in the field by asking stakeholders to comment on the themes to check if

these resonated with their experiences and if they could challenge the themes or categories.

We have revised and probed the narrative themes further based on participant feedback,

ethnographic field observation, and triangulation achieved through data from multiple

interviews conducted with diverse stakeholders.

Narratives of Spirituality

Data analysis revealed a consistent set of spirituality themes across the narratives told

by Bereket employees. The first recurrent theme is the centrality of inner peace in forming a

spirit of compassion. CEO Salih Tas explains his own spirituality as follows:

Islam asks me to nurture the knowledge of the mind and heart. The word Islam has the

root word, peace; and it means being in peace with your colleagues, your neighbours,

your family, yourself, and the universe. My inner voice tells me to open up my heart to

all humans. At the heart of every religion is compassion. This is what all Prophets

including Jesus and Mohammed preached. Peace be upon them. Compassion is the

beginning of being; without it everything is chaos. The universe itself is a symphony

of compassion. I just go with the flow. I love every creation because of the Creator. I

think this summarizes my spirituality best.

18


The second theme is a lack of separation between work and life. Salih Tas

incorporates a deep sense of interconnectedness into his daily work and into relationships with

his employees. Employees call him “Salih abi” (elder brother) and share their personal

problems with him. One manager, Murat (28), mentions how Mr. Tas helped him when he

got married:

Salih abi has been as close to me as my own brother. He even helped me organize my

wedding. He is my mentor. I rely on him as my spiritual guide and I seek advice from

him. His time, energy, and patience have no limits. He is an extremely sincere and

modest person. I feel very lucky to know him.

The third recurrent theme across narratives of spirituality is the sustainability of high

quality relationships among people in the organization. These relationships go far beyond the

formal roles and titles in the organization; and they seem to be driven by mutual affection and

connections that are deeply spiritual. For example, some employees comment that they pray

for each other mentioning their names and good wishes for them. “We love each other and

we believe our friendship will continue in the hereafter” says Zeynep (31); one of the

employees in Accounting. There is a spiritual ecosystem in the organization that gives room

to deep and sincere relationships among people:

There is a lot of fresh air and ample space to express my inner child. In fact, we are a

group of kindred spirits helping and supporting each other.

The final recurrent theme is the tendency of leaders to engage in constant spiritual

self-questioning while striving to devote themselves to the people around them. “I need to be

alert to the potential traps of my ego; such as becoming too self-centered or acting selfishly.

19


We are here to serve the people around us.” says Ahmet (39), one of the team leaders in

People Department:

We act as each other’s true friend, so that we may be able to warn each other about

our mistakes. It takes an effort to be able to receive honest feedback with an open ear,

mind, and heart. Everyone is dedicated to his or her colleagues. Everyone genuinely

supports the success of each other. This atmosphere of compassion and collegiality is

not easily found in today’s barren workplaces.

Narratives of Morality

When we asked Bereket managers about the ethical rules that they refer to in their

actions and decisions, they consistently pointed to a common source of ethical code; the

Ahilik code . The ‘Ahilik’ system represents the overarching social and professional

organizations in Anatolia that enforce ethical and social rules upon their members during the

Ottoman state. The ahilik system was established in the 13th Century and since then played a

significant role in the everyday functioning of trade associations and represented the ethical

system of rules for the wider society. Those who are engaged in degrading or unethical

behaviour cannot be members. All members of the profession are advised that they act

honestly and responsibly in all their businesses and in their relationships with their customers.

The most important ethical principles are summarized as follows (these principles were

placed on the desks of senior managers at Bereket):

“Keep your hand open (generosity, benevolence, and charity)

Keep your dining-table open (sharing, hospitality, and generosity)

Keep your door open (helping, altruism, and benevolence)

Keep your eyes tied (focus on spirituality and the hereafter instead of materialism)

20


Control your waist (decency, morality, and self-restraint)

Hold your tongue (dignity, silence, and wisdom)”

These Ahi principles have their roots in Sufism – the mystical branch of Islam - which

has important teachings on ethical conduct. Among the Sufi rules of conduct, compassion

has a central place as a necessary moral virtue. For example, Rumi, whose philosophy based

on universal compassion shaped and deeply influenced Anatolian ethical wisdom, says on

compassion:

“Come, come whatever you are / Whether you are atheist, or worship fire /Whether

you have broken your oath thousand times / Our convent is not the convent of despair / Our

door is the door of hope come / Come as your true self, like you are.”

Rumi’s words embody the ethics of compassion as a reflection of the Golden Rule: Do

to others what you would have them do to you. This requires constant questioning, self

discipline and self control. Therefore, the ethics of compassion is about the need to act

ethically, to reach the ideal, to be responsible, to live life the right way, and to improve the

world. The ethics of compassion is also related to being dedicated for a larger cause and

contributing to the common good. However, as the individual behaves as the judge of his or

her own, he or she should behave as the advocate of others. This means avoiding judging and

criticising other people and being tolerant, open, and forgiving towards everyone.

This sense of forgiveness and openness obviously reflects a different sense of morality

and departs from typical normative rules or evaluative moral judgments. The organizational

culture at Bereket is based on an appreciative sense of morality and a deep desire of special

bonding with other people at work. Employees engage in meaningful and inspiring

21


conversations with each other. They feel a deeper responsibility and show genuine concern

for people around them.

I have learned the meaning of real friendship in this organization. We care for each

other here and we are all for one another. If one of us is ill, we will be there offering

soup. If I fall in debt, my friends will lend me. This sacrifice and devotedness for each

other is very rare in today’s workplaces and we feel really lucky to be part of it.

(Osman, 33).

While some of the narratives cited under spirituality and morality streams draw on Islam, and

in particular Sufi spirituality in this article, these streams are meant and proposed to recognize

diverse spiritual and cultural traditions. The methodological approach used here can be

equally attempted in, for example, a Buddhist or Christian spiritual worldview.

Narratives of Positivity

Data analysis revealed a consistent set of positive engagement themes across the

narratives told by Bereket employees. This contagious and collective nature of positive

engagement is illustrated well by the following narrative:

“You can feel warmth the minute you walk in. There is always positive energy around

you that you can tap into. You feel that everyone cares about you; and you want to

care more. There is a virtuous cycle around you and you want to be part of it. The

Bereket atmosphere is just fabulous.” (Aysegul, 41).

Salih Tas echoes similar views when he narrates the philosophy and the brand name of

his company:

22


I established this company to enrich the lives of people – not only materially; but more

importantly spiritually and emotionally. We have ‘bereket’ (abundance and blessing)

here; like the rain. Bereket implies positive movement. It reminds us of God’s

constant help and gifts for us. God is pouring us bounties, opportunities and

resources. I am just a custodian here. It is my duty to share all these with the amazing

people here. I am just thankful to have such a wonderful team around me. This is

bereket. People are the real richness. All the wealth created here is meaningless if I

break a heart.

Although these narratives emphasize the contagious nature of positive engagement at

the organizational level, positive engagement is also a recurrent theme at the individual level.

Employees mentioned a constant striving and search for a more benevolent and transcendent

self:

I am in a continuous battle with myself. I am in search for a better self – more

compassionate, kind, and considerate. If you ever want to progress and transcend

yourself, you need to engage in constant reflection and struggle with yourself. You

have to keep questioning yourself each and every minute. You have to go beyond

comfort and convenience, and always force yourself to pursue challenges. It is not

easy, but this constant striving and self-awareness is the key to progress and positive

change.” (Handan, 45).

This engagement with the self has its merits; because this constant striving for a better

self creates positive dynamism in the organization. As individuals reflect on themselves,

analyze their shortcomings, and see potential opportunities for improvement; they also start a

positive cycle of progress. They develop new skills and engage in new learning and projects.

23


They are more open to new perspectives and diverse views. Whatever they do, they do it with

enthusiasm and passion. As employees feel a sense of progress, they are further motivated and

they work harder. The momentum creates a further momentum. Furthermore, engaging in

self criticism prevents employees from falling into ego traps such as complacency, arrogance,

and false pride. Questioning the self enables an individual to recover from success traps easily

(“I can do better” replaces “I am the best”). All these positive dynamics of engagement lead to

an upward spiral. This upward spiral reflects a cycle of hope, faith, passion, hard work,

persistence, reflection, and renewal. The following narrative illustrates this spiral:

We had an urgent order and deadline to be delivered on Monday morning. It was a

moment of make or break for the company. It was already Friday evening and we

were far from finishing the order. We had to produce 30 thousand uniforms. Under

normal circumstances, there was no chance that we could make it. However, we met

on Friday evening and made a commitment together. We vowed that we would make

this happen. We called our close friends and neighbours for help. We worked

extremely hard for the whole weekend. We slept for only five hours on Friday,

Saturday, and Sunday nights. Some of us just did not go home, spent the whole night

at the factory, and they slept for a few hours during the day. You won’t believe it, but

it was the best weekend of our lives. We felt as if we were making history. You should

have seen the spirit and the shared passion here. All bodies were working relentlessly

and all eyes were shining. We finished all of the uniforms on Monday morning. We

were exhausted, but we were extremely happy. We knew that a miracle was happening

and we were just feeling very grateful to be a part of it.

Narratives of Community

24


Multiple themes have emerged as a result of the analysis of the narratives on

community responsiveness. The first theme that is recurrent across the narratives told by

Bereket employees is the Anatolian wisdom that emphasizes nourishing the human spirit and

serving the needs of diverse people. Twenty-seven civilizations that emerged in Anatolia

have all benefited from nourishing the human spirit and serving diverse people. For example,

the Ottoman state envisioned and implemented a multicultural, multilingual, and multi-faith

social design to nurture the well-being of its people. Bereket managers emphasized the words

and wisdom of Sheikh Edebali, who can be considered as the spiritual guide and the spiritual

founder of the Ottoman state:

“Dear my child, now, you are the leader! From now on, anger is for us; calmness is

for you. Being offended is for us; pleasing is for you. Incapacity and mistakes are for us;

tolerance is for you. Disagreements and disparity are for us; justice is for you. Unfairness is

for us; forgiveness is for you. Dividing is for us, unifying is for you. Know how to be patient;

a flower will not flourish until its time comes. Never forget: Flourish the human being and

the human spirit, so that the community can flourish.”

Edebali’s advice has implications for designing virtuous and compassionate

organizations. Salih Tas, CEO of Bereket, carries this advice on his desk to remind himself of

the principles of caring and compassion in his daily work and life. “We need compassion as

much as water and air. We try to foster high quality relationships and bonds of compassion

among us. We do this through positive actions and interactions in the social fabric of this

organization”, states Mr. Tas.

In Bereket, community responsiveness is reflected in a number of corporate social

responsibility projects and initiatives. Bereket employees work as volunteers and collaborate

25


with a Turkish NGO (Light House Aid and Solidarity Association) to implement community

service projects including “Shall Children Not Feel Cold” (sharing coats for the winter),

“Health for Little Eyes” (offering optical solutions and eyeglasses for children), “1001

children, 1001 wishes” (online matching service for the wishes of children and the donors

who realize these wishes), “Water is Civilization” (providing sustainable water sources for

villages), “Blue Butterfly” (providing books, clothing, and educational resources for primary

school students), “Bridging Hearts” (an exchange program sending children to spend one

week with a sister family in another city or village) and “White Dreams” (offering donations

of wedding dresses, suits, and dowry sets to marrying low income couples). Salih Tas narrates

their approach to philanthropy as follows:

I remember feeling hungry as a child. I remember how I would be ashamed of asking

for food. I remember how my father would feel when he could not bring home enough

bread. I know what poverty is and I know that there are thousands of hungry children

out there. They may not have food or money; but I know that these people have the

highest dignity and nobleness. What kind of a person are you if you eat your fill and

sleep well when your neighbours are hungry? How can we be so insensitive and

indulge in our cocoons when other people are suffering? Giving to community is not

an option of social nicety; it is indispensible to our core values here. We are trying to

make philanthropy institutional and sustainable; but we also want to keep its personal

touch and spirit.

Proposal for a Benevolent Leadership Model

26


The benevolent leadership model that we are proposing is built on three critical

assumptions. First, these four streams can be used to encourage and initiate collective

capabilities of care and compassion in organizations. Second, these four streams are distinct,

in the sense that the goals they seek are not interchangeable, even though they are highly

interactive with each other. Third, these four streams can provide a holistic set of assumptions

and research findings on creating virtuous and compassionate organizations. Although one

may articulate the existence of additional streams related to creating positive change in

organizations, we propose that these four streams together make up a meaningful whole and

they craft a big picture of creating virtuous and compassionate organizations.

These four streams can be viewed as useful streams of research to investigate how

leaders create and enable collective capabilities of care and compassion in organizations and

the world around them. It is useful to picture these streams as four overlapping circles sharing

common conceptual space yet possessing distinctive intellectual properties. Each of them has

arisen in response to the specific changes in the contexts in which organizations and leaders

recently operate. Although some of the research in these streams could be reviewed and

collapsed together, there are enough differences to keep them conceptually distinct from each

other.

This paper develops a conceptual model of benevolent leadership by building on four

streams of organizational research that are centered on main aspects of leadership

responsibility towards creating virtuous and compassionate organizations: (1) spiritual depth,

(2) ethical sensitivity, (3) positive engagement, and (4) community responsiveness. Spiritual

depth refers to the leader’s search for a sense of meaning and purpose at work. Ethical

sensitivity refers to the leader’s process of moral reflection and consideration of what is right

27


and wrong conduct at work. Positive engagement refers to creating positive change in the

organization through inspiring hope and courage. Finally, community responsiveness refers to

the leader’s role in solving social problems and enabling social innovation to contribute to

society.

These four aspects are based upon four inter-related streams of research: (1)

spirituality, (2) morality, (3) positivity, and (4) community (See Figure 1). The benevolent

leadership model underlines the importance of taking all four dimensions into account while

theorizing or researching on care and compassion in organizations.

Discussion

This research has used narrative inquiry methods to give voice to employees and to

learn about their perspectives and experiences on compassion in an Anatolian tiger. To ensure

research quality, we have evaluated the invitational quality, depth, wholeness, and

authenticity of the narratives and we ensured to take perspectives of employees from all

levels, departments, and backgrounds. However, narratives as socially constructed as they are

produced by people in the context of specific social and cultural conditions and they are

inherently interpretive devices through which people represent themselves and their worlds to

others (Chase, 2005). Stories are inherently multilayered and ambiguous, so narrative inquiry

is bounded by the constructed nature of truth (Reissman, 1993).

This paper contributes to the advancement of virtue ethics scholarship and practice by

first reviewing four large bodies of research associated with nurturing virtues in organizations

and then integrating them to develop a conceptual benevolent leadership model toward

creating virtuous and compassionate organizations. The proposed benevolent leadership

model sits at the crossroads of four important research streams in organizational behaviour.

28


First, in the spirituality stream, we draw on spirituality at work research (Ashmos & Duchon,

2000; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003) that portrays leaders as individuals searching for a sense

of meaning (Mitroff & Denton, 1999) and deeper self-awareness (Kriger & Seng, 2005).

Second, in the morality stream, we build from the literatures of business ethics, values in

management, and ethical decision making to explain how leaders act ethically (Brown &

Treviño, 2006; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996). Third, in the positivity stream, we build on

strength based approaches; namely positive organizational scholarship (Cameron et al., 2003),

and appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1998) in order to develop theoretical

understandings of how leaders cultivate human strengths and lead to positive change. Fourth,

in the community stream, we draw on research on corporate social responsibility (Carroll,

1999; Garriga & Melé, 2004), and organizational citizenship behaviour (Dyne, Graham, &

Dienesch, 1994) to inquire how leaders fulfil their social responsibilities and contribute to

their communities.

There is a delicate balance that comes from integrating these four dimensions or

anchors. In cases of extreme values, the equilibrium of benevolent leadership is disrupted. If

spiritual depth is too shallow, we face barren workplaces that lack a sense of meaning, which

can be called the state of apathy. If spiritual depth is too high, we face the risk of a new age

philosophy with no focus on results. There is also the problem of reconciling religious and

spiritual diversity. If ethical sensitivity is too low, there is risk of violating moral codes of

conduct, which may be denoted as atrophy. If ethical sensitivity is too high, the risk is a

judgmental atmosphere with strict rules and formulas, which stifles creativity and

empowerment. If positive engagement is too low, the risk is being passive and lacking

initiative as well as showing low morale and commitment. This state of being can be called

29


lethargy. If positive engagement is too high, the risk is manipulation of employees through

popular motivational techniques or quick fix programs. If community responsiveness is too

low, the risk is lack of cohesion and social support, which brings isolation and social disorder.

This state can be called entropy. If community responsiveness is too high, the risk is losing

focus on organizational goals, such as shareholder value and profits.

As outlined above, there may be a possibility of conflict among the inputs of these

different research streams and the corresponding dimensions or anchors. In such cases, it is

important to provide customized coaching and mentoring for leaders to help them overcome

the dominance of one perspective at the expense of others. One of the next steps of this

research will be to create a practical inventory that helps leaders to explore their own profiles

and perspectives with respect to these four dimensions. This inventory will also include

practical recommendations for leaders to find a balance among these four anchors and create

balanced solutions in case of potential problems.

Implications for theory and research

The benevolent leadership model implies that leaders should consider and balance all

four perspectives in their decisions and actions. This model purports that a holistic

consideration of these four sets of factors at work provides leaders the big picture and

guidance on how to create virtuous and compassionate organizations. As organizations are

confronted by ethical, spiritual, transformational, and social challenges, the benevolent

leadership model can provide leaders with a fresh perspective on addressing those challenges.

Therefore, the added value of the model comes from its unique holistic perspective it provides

leaders.

30


The benevolent leadership model has implications for leadership theory and research.

This paper proposes the utility of benevolent leadership as a unifying construct to provide

direction for further research on how leaders can create virtuous and compassionate

organizations. This model provides an opportunity for leadership researchers to conceptualize

and integrate diverse fields of organizational research centered on creating common good:

business ethics, spirituality at work, positive organizational scholarship, and corporate social

responsibility. Through this unified framework, leadership researchers can better make use of

concepts and theories on how leaders can contribute to the world around them. The

disciplines of virtue ethics and leadership are still largely isolated from one another, each with

their own vocabulary and theoretical constructs. The field of leadership can be advanced

through broader insights and principles derived from the discipline of virtue ethics.

Further research is needed to solidify the contributions of this study to the fields of

leadership and virtue ethics. First, future research should develop psychometric, experimental

and ethnographic methods for further exploration, operationalization and measurement of

benevolent leadership in organizations. Interview-based methodologies can offer rich

descriptions of how benevolent leaders create positive change in organizations. Longitudinal

studies could delineate the processes through which benevolent leaders reflect on themselves,

make decisions, take positive actions, improve organizational effectiveness, and influence

people around them. The construct of benevolent leadership needs to be refined through

additional empirical research. The qualitative data in this study mostly relied on self-

perceptions and attitudes of the respondents. More empirical research is needed to measure

and observe the actual behaviors of managers who have benevolent tendencies. Mixed designs

31


combining in-depth qualitative methods and large-scale survey data can be used to inquire the

nature and scope of benevolent leadership and its behavioral manifestations.

Second, there are alternative leadership styles that managers can adopt to achieve

positive results, such as ethical leadership, spiritual leadership, transformational leadership,

and servant leadership. The benevolent leadership model needs to be further refined and

differentiated from other leadership models through empirical research. Future research is

needed to address how different leadership styles and roles interrelate and complement one

another to create compassionate and virtuous organizations.

Third, benevolent leadership may have curvilinear effects on various organizational

outcomes and the four components need to be in equilibrium to achieve positive

organizational outcomes. This hypothesis needs to be empirically tested and further

researched.

Implications for practice

First, using the framework developed in this research, organizations can learn more

about enabling a positive community where employees feel authentic and connected to their

inner selves, their co-workers, and their community. The benevolent leadership model

underlines the importance of specific dimensions of corporate environments – a shared

mission, a shared sense of purpose, high quality connections, and a positive organizational

culture – that support creating positive change in organizations. Similarly, flatter

organizational structures where leadership is distributed or shared among people may be more

conducive to benevolent leadership. However, more empirical research is needed to identify

specific organizational structures, procedures, and policies which will support benevolent

leadership. Organizations can provide leadership development programs and training that

32


fosters a benevolent leadership perspective and disseminates best practices of benevolent

leaders who have succeeded in creating positive change. Organizations may further support

benevolent leadership by institutionalizing and encouraging positive change agendas and

social initiatives. This support can be in the form of encouraging, reinforcing, and rewarding

benevolent leadership behaviors. Organizations may look for opportunities to recruit

individuals who possess benevolent leadership characteristics to create a benevolence-

oriented organizational culture.

Second, the narratives presented in this paper suggest a strong connection between

benevolent tendencies of top managers (e.g. the CEO) and an organizational culture of

compassion. Thus, the narratives reveal and illustrate the mechanisms and discourses by

which top managers shape culture through their words and deeds.

Third, the results of this research can be used by leaders to develop deeper self

awareness through individual reflection. The road to becoming a benevolent leader involves

personal reflection, growth and transformation. Reflecting on and exploring one‘s own

benevolent tendencies enables a leader to discover the underlying structure of his/her values,

attitudes, and motives. Leaders who can assess and evaluate their unique individual values,

gifts, and skills can utilize these talents and strengths. Leaders who reflect on their benevolent

tendencies can discover the essence of their inner wholeness and accordingly channel their

search for mission, meaning, and purpose at work. Furthermore, using benevolent leadership

framework, leaders can create supportive team and work environments for employees

centered on ethical sensitivity, spiritual depth, positive engagement, and community

responsiveness. Benevolent leadership entails discovering and embracing employees and team

members as whole persons, acknowledging not only their cognitive faculties but also their

33


social, emotional, and spiritual faculties, to engage their hearts, spirits, and minds. Leaders

who are aware of benevolent tendencies can act as catalysts for individual growth, helping

each employee tap into the boundless human potential for personal and organizational

transformation.

Lastly, the benevolent leadership model has the potential to create virtuous and

compassionate organizations beyond corporate environments. The model can be applied to

different types of organizations such as non-profit or governmental organizations. For

example, how does a benevolent academician interact with his or her students, colleagues,

administrators, and the wider society in quest for a more humane, creative, and compassionate

university? How can one contribute to creating a spirited university engaged with passion,

alive with meaning, and connected with compassion? How can a benevolent academician

encourage passionate engagement based on spiritual renovation, intellectual renewal, and

emotional revitalization? These questions merit further exploration of benevolent leadership

in academic institutions.

Limitations

The benevolent leadership model has several limitations that need to be addressed in

future research. First, without collection of further case study data and replication of the

empirical study in other cultural and organizational contexts, the results are not generalizable

to different contexts. Benevolent leadership practices may need adaptation for different

organizational contexts and across different cultures. For example, we expect that benevolent

leadership can be better developed in non-governmental and social purpose organizations due

to their mission-driven organizational cultures. It is more convenient to focus on benevolence

in customer oriented industries where interpersonal sensitivity is regarded as more critical.

34


Benevolent leadership is also more compatible with organizations having progressive,

humanitarian, and compassionate cultures or practices. Moreover, we would expect that the

benevolent leadership model more readily fit collectivist cultures due to higher communal

sensitivity and community responsiveness prevalent in these cultures. However, we think

benevolent leadership practices might also be developed in a secular Western cultural context

and in a large multinational organization to facilitate a caring and compassionate culture. We

are aware that there may be serious challenges in incorporating benevolent leadership in

corporate environments where fierce economic pressures, harsh market realities, and hyper-

competition can make benevolence and virtuousness seem too idealistic or utopian. Still, it is

possible to develop benevolent leadership in organizations through a combination of

consciousness-raising activities such as individualised mentoring, service-learning

opportunities, community service projects, and professional development workshops. These

experiences can help organizational members to explore and find their more profound and

idealist selves. We are in the process of designing and implementing benevolent leadership

development methods in the context of university teaching and executive consulting. More

experimentation and results will be needed to discover what works or not.

Second, the benevolent leadership model might be perceived by practitioners as too

difficult to implement because of current economic pressures. While the evidence in the case

study of Bereket suggests that considering the deep needs of persons (moral, spiritual,

emotional, social) as employees, customers, and consumers leads to sustainable organizational

performance in the long run, benevolent leadership might still be seen as unfeasible,

unreachable, or hyperbolic in a highly competitive environment in the present economic

climate. It is therefore critical to engage with and closely work with practitioners as they face

35


challenges in the implementation of benevolent leadership. Personal diagnosis, friendly

mentoring, peer review, on-the-job training, acting as a model, and consciousness-raising

conversations will all be helpful to support practitioners in putting benevolent leadership to

practice.

Third, there might be some downsides to benevolent leadership. If benevolent

leadership is not exercised mindfully, it might lead to an unhealthy sense of dependence or

toleration for poor performance. A benevolent leader, for instance, might have a difficult time

addressing performance problems, which might in turn harm the viability and sustainability of

the business. For example, John Deere moved away from calling employees and dealers a

‘family’ as this resulted in poor-performing stakeholders staying around the company for long

and ultimately threatening business success (Brat and Aeppel, 2007).

Concluding thoughts

In conclusion, the concept of benevolent leadership can be used as a higher-order

construct that bridges diverse approaches to creating virtuous and compassionate

organizations. The vitality and utility of the benevolent leadership model is based on the

insight and the big picture the model provides leaders in their decisions and actions at work.

Without such integration on a substantial level of nuanced thinking and balanced action,

leaders may be confronted with the threats of facing analysis paralysis and making partial

decisions. This paper purports that the usage of four critical aspects of benevolent leadership

will be a critical success factor in leading positive change and creating virtuous and

compassionate organizations in the 21st century.

Going forward, we envision a more inclusive vocabulary of leadership which is

enriched and nurtured by different traditions and disciplines of humanity beyond the

36


conventional paradigm dominated by power, self-interest, shareholder value and profit

maximization. Our leadership dictionary needs new definitions, new constructs, fresh and

creative thinking, and a more integrative and interdisciplinary outlook. These traditions and

disciplines of humanity extend well beyond the boundaries of the modern corporation. Some

of these traditions are thousands of years old, such as the legacy of world religions. The

power of the Golden Rule extends beyond specific religions. For example, the rule of

compassion is more powerful than the conventional rationalized models of ethical decision

making which are based on utilitarianism or moral reasoning. The issues of morality are not

confined within the narrow limits of rational reasoning, however, most current business ethics

courses seem to narrowly focus on such models. Accordingly, we should feel more

comfortable in borrowing terms and concepts from the worlds of arts, humanities, and

philosophy. These terms may not be fully rigorous or clear-cut, but they may reflect better

the richness, depth, and density of these concepts. We need more inclusive terminology that

bridges/encompasses disparate and isolated streams of research. We envision conceptualizing

leadership performance in much broader terms than efficiency and to encompass legacy,

contribution, positive impact, and service. We suggest analyzing patterns of extraordinary

moments/events of benevolence in our daily lives and in the lives of people around us. This

analysis will enable us to open up new spaces of inquiry on how leaders create virtuous and

compassionate organizations in the 21st century.

37


References

Ashmos, D.P. and D. Duchon: 2000, ‘Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure’,

Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 134–145.

Aycan, Z.: 1999, ‘Anatolian tigers: Management and human resource practices’, Paper

presented at the 6th National Congress of Management and Organizations, Istanbul,

Turkey, May 1999.

Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio: 1993, Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.

M. Chemmers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and

directions, 49-88. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Beauchamp, T.: 2008, ‘The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics’, The Stanford

Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Accessed

online on 24 November 2012;

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/principle-beneficence

Bolman, L. G. and T. E. Deal: 2008, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and

Leadership (4th ed.), Jossey-Bass Business and Management Series.

Bornstein, D.: 2007, How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new

ideas (Oxford University Press, USA).

Bowen, H. R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Harper and Row, New

York).

Brat, I. and T. Aeppel: 2007, ‘Why Deere is weeding out dealers even as farms boom: Some

veteran retailers feel betrayed by shift; 'We are not a family'’, The Wall Street Journal,

38

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/principle-beneficence


14 August 2007, accessed online on 17 August, 2012:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118705668767896842.html?mod=hps_us_pageone .

Brytting, T. and C. Trollestad: 2000, ‘Managerial Thinking on Value-Based Management’,

International Journal of Value-Based Management 13(1), 55-77.

Brown, M. E. and L. K. Trevino: 2006, ‘Ethical leadership: A review and future directions’,

The Leadership Quarterly 17, 595-616.

Bryson, J. M. and B. C. Crosby: 1992, Leadership for the common good: Tackling public

problems in a shared power world (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Cameron, K. S., J. E. Dutton, and R. E. Quinn: 2003, Positive Organizational Scholarship:

Foundations of a new Discipline (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler).

Cameron, K. S., D. Bright, and A. Caza: 2004, ‘Exploring the Relationships between

Organizational Virtuousness and Performance’, American Behavioral Scientist 47,

766-790.

Cappelli, P.: 2008, ‘Talent management for the 21st century’, Harvard Business Review 3, 74-

81.

Carroll, A.: 1999, ‘Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct’,

Business and Society 38(3), 268-295.

Carroll, A.B.: 2001, ‘Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium: Corporate social

responsibility and models of management morality’, in J. E. Richardson (ed.),

Business Ethics (Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill), pp. 198-203.

Cash, K., and G. Gray: 2000, ‘A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the

workplace’, Academy of Management Executive 14(3), 124-134.

39

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118705668767896842.html?mod=hps_us_pageone


Caslione, J. A.: 2009, ‘Chaotics: Leading, managing and marketing in the age of turbulence’,

Ivey Business Journal Online, Nov/Dec 2009.

Chase, S. E.: 2005, ‘Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices’, in Norman K.

Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.), The handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition

(Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage), pp. 651-679.

Clandinin, D. J. and F. M. Connelly: 2000, Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in

Qualitative Research, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers).

Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate

social performance’, Academy of Management Journal 20(1), 92-117.

Clegg, S., T. Clarke, and E. Ibarra: 2001, Millennium Management, Changing Paradigms and

Organizational Studies, Human Relations 54(1), 31-36.

Cooperrider, D. L., and J. Dutton: 1998, No Limits to Cooperation: The Organization

Dimensions of Global Change (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications).

Cooperrider, D. L., and D. Whitney: 1998, Appreciative Inquiry: A Constructive Approach to

Organization Development and Social Change (Lakeshore Publishing, Cleveland,

OH).

Corkery, M. and J. R. Hagerty: 2008, ‘Continuing vicious cycle of pain in housing and

finance ensnares market’, Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2008.

Czarniawska, B.: 1998, A Narrative Approach in Organization Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage).

Daly, H. E. and J. B. Cobb: 1989, For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward

Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future (Boston: Beacon Press).

40

http://proquest.umi.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/pqdlink?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=57399&pcid=51055111&SrchMode=3


Daiute, C. and C. Lightfoot: 2004, ‘Theory and Craft in Narrative Inquiry’, in C. Daiute and

C. Lightfoot (eds.), Narrative Analysis: Studying the Development of Individuals in

Society (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).

Delaney, J.T. and M.A. Huselid: 1996, ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management

Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance’, Academy of Management

Journal, 39, 949–969.

Demir, O., M. Acar, and M. Toprak: 2004, ‘Anatolian Tigers: Prospects and

Callenges’, Middle Eastern Studies, 40(6), 166-188.

Driver, M.: 2007, ‘Meaning and suffering in organizations’, Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 20(5), 611-632.

Dyne, L. V., J. W. Graham, and R. M. Dienesch: 1994, ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation’, Academy of Management

Journal, 37(4), 765-802.

Esty, D. C. and A. S. Winston: 2006, Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use

Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage

(Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).

Fredrickson, B.L.: 2001, ‘The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-

and-build theory of positive emotions’, American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.

Frost, P. J.: 2003, Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and

conflict, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Fry, L.W.: 2003, ‘Toward a theory of spiritual leadership’, Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-

727.

41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_Studies


Fry, L.W., and J.W. Slocum: 2008, ‘Maximizing the triple bottom line through

spiritual leadership’, Organizational Dynamics, 37, 86-96.

Garriga, E. and D. Melé: 2004, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the

Territory’, Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (1-2), 51–71.

Giacalone, R. A., and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 2003, Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe).

Gladwin, T. N., J. J. Kennelly, and T. S. Krause: 1995, ‘Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable

Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research’, The Academy of

Management Review, 20(4), 874-907.

Greenhalgh, H.: 2008, ‘Poor ethical standards causing financial crisis’, Financial Times.

October 13, 2008.

Greenleaf, R.K.: 1977, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power

and Greatness (Paulist Press, New York, NY).

Hsieh, T.: 2010, Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose (Grand

Central Publishing).

Hollender, J., B. Breen, and P. Senge: 2010, The Responsibility Revolution: How the Next

Generation of Businesses Will Win (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Hosgor, E.: 2011, ‘Islamic Capital, Anatolian Tigers: Past and Present’, Middle Eastern

Studies, 47(2), 343- 360

Jenkins, R. L.: 2003, ‘Crisis in confidence in Corporate America’, Mid - American Journal of

Business, Fall 2003, 18(2), 5-7.

42


Kanungo, R. N. and M. Mendonca: 1996, Ethical Dimensions of Leadership (Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Karakas, F.: 2010, ‘Positive Management Education: Creating Creative Minds, Passionate

Hearts, and Kindred Spirits’, Journal of Management Education, 35(2), 198-226.

Kernochan, R. A., D. W. McCormick, and J. A. White: 2007, ‘Spirituality and the

Management Teacher: Reflections of Three Buddhists on Compassion, Mindfulness,

and Selflessness in the Classroom’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(1), 61-75.

Kessler, E. H., and J. R. Bailey: 2007, Handbook of organizational and managerial wisdom

(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Kotter, J. P.: 2008: A Sense of Urgency (Harvard Business School Press).

Kriger, M. and Y. Seng: 2005, ‘Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of

leadership based on the worldviews of five religions’, The Leadership Quarterly, 16,

771-806.

Kriger, M. and B. Hanson: 1999, ‘A value-based paradigm for creating truly healthy

organizations’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 302–317.

Law, K.S., C.S. Wong, and W. H. Mobley: 1998, ‘Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional

constructs’, Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741-755.

Lilius, J. M., M. C. Worline, S. Maitlis, J. Kanov, J. E. Dutton and P. Frost: 2008, ‘The

contours and consequences of compassion at work’, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 29, 193-218.

Luthans, F.: 2002, ‘The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior’, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706.

43


Maccoby, M.: 2000, ‘Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons’, Harvard

Business Review, 78 (1), 69-77.

Mair, J. and I. Martí: 2006, ‘Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation,

prediction, and delight’, Journal of World Business, 41 (1), 36–44.

Maitlis, S. and H. Ozcelik: 2004, ‘Toxic decision processes: A study of emotion and

organizational decision making’, Organizational Science, 15, 375-393.

Makridakis, S., R. M. Hogarth and A. Gaba: 2010, ‘Why Forecasts Fail. What to Do Instead’,

MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(2), 83-90.

Marques, J., S. Dhiman, and R. King: 2007, Spirituality in the Workplace: What It Is, Why It

Matters, How to Make It Work for You (Personhood Press).

Matten, D. and A. Crane: 2005, ‘Corporate Citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical

conceptualization’, Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 166-179.

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R.L., & M. Kuenzi: 2012, ‘Who displays

ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and

consequences of ethical leadership’, Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151-171.

McCormick, D. W.: 1994, ‘Spirituality and management’, Journal of Managerial Psychology,

9(6), 5-8.

Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen: 1991, ‘A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment’, Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Mishler E.: 1991, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA).

44


Mitroff, I.I. and E. A. Denton: 1999, ‘A study of spirituality in the workplace’, Sloan

Management Review, 83-92.

Molinsky, A. and J. Margolis: 2005, ‘Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in

organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 30, 245-268.

Neal, J.A., B.M.B. Lichtenstein and D. Banner: 1999, ‘Spiritual perspectives on individual,

organizational and societal transformation’, Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 12(3), 175-185.

O'Bannon, G.: 2001, ‘Managing Our Future: The Generation X Factor’, Public Personnel

Management, 30.

Ogden, S. and R. Watson: 1999, ‘Corporate Performance and Stakeholder Management:

Balancing Shareholder and Customer Interests in the U.K. Privatized Water Industry’,

Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 526-538.

Organ, D. W.: 1988, Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome

(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).

Organ, D. W.: 1990, ‘The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior’, in B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 12 (Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press), pp. 43–72.

Pech, R. J.: 2009, ‘Delegating and devolving power: a case study of engaged employees’,

Journal of Business Strategy, 30(1), 27-32.

Pelletier, K. L. and M. C. Bligh: 2008, ‘The Aftermath of Organizational Corruption:

Employee Attributions and Emotional Reactions’, Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4),

823-845.

45


Plowman, D.A., Baker, L.T., Beck, T.E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S.T., & D.V.Travis: 2007,

‘Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change’,

Academy of Management Journal, 50, 515-543.

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, R. H. Moorman, and R. Fetter: 1990, ‘Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behavior’, The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. B. Paine, and D. G. Bachrach: 2000, ‘Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature

and Suggestions for Future Research’, Journal of Management, 26, (3), 513–563.

Pugh, S. D., D. P. Skarlicki and B. S. Passell: 2003, ‘After the fall: Layoff victims' trust and

cynicism in re-employment’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 76, 201-212.

Reissman C.: 1993, Narrative Analysis (Sage, London).

Russell, R. F.: 2001, ‘The role of values in servant leadership’, Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 22(2), 76-84.

Rynes, S., J. Bartunek, J. Dutton and J. Margolis: 2010, ‘Call for papers: Academy of

Management Review special topic forum: Understanding and creating virtuous and

compassionate organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 334–336.

Savitz, A. W. and K. Weber: 2006, The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run

Companies are Achieving Economic, Social, and Environmental Success- and How

You can too (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

46


Seligman, M. E. P.: 2002, ‘Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy’, in

C. R. Synder and S. J. Lopez (eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (3-9), (New

York: Oxford University Press).

Senge, P. and Carstedt, G.: 2001, ‘Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution’, MIT

Sloan Management Review, 42 (2), 24-38.

Shanz, K.: 2009, ‘Maintaining Stakeholder Trust in Difficult Times: Some Fundamental

Reflections in Light of the Credit Crisis’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance,

34(2), 260–270.

Sison, A.J.G. and Fontrodona, J. 2011, ‘The Common Good of Business: Addressing a

Challenge Posed by «Caritas in Veritate»’, Journal of Business Ethics, 100 (1), 99-

107.

Sison, A.J.G. and Fontrodona, J. 2012, ‘The Common Good of the Firm in the Aristotelian-

Thomistic Tradition’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 22 (2), 211-246.

Smith, J., Flowers, P. and M. Larkin: 2009, Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory,

Method and Research (Sage, London).

Steenland, S. and S. Dreier: 2008, ‘It’s a Moral Meltdown, Too’, Newsletter of Center for

American Progress, October 7, 2008.

Suddaby, R. R.: 2010, ‘Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization’,

Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346-357.

Treviño, L. K.: 1986, ‘Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation

Interactionist Model’, Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.

47


Tsui, A.: 2010, ‘Call for Papers: Dare to Care: Passion and Compassion in Management

Practice and Research’, Academy of Management Meeting, Montreal.

Vickers, M. H.: 2010, ‘From the Editor-in-Chief’s Desk: Feelings, Work, and Beautiful

Theory: Toward Engaging the Hearts and Minds of Employees and Employers’,

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22, 79–81

Waddock, S. A.: 2004, ‘Parallel Universes: Companies, Academics, and the Progress of

Corporate Citizenship’, Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5-30.

Walker, D. M.: 2005, ‘Reclaiming public trust in the wake of recent corporate accountability

failures’, International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 2(3), 264-271.

Walumbwa, F., B. Avolio, W. Gardner, T. Wernsing, and S. Peterson: 2008, ‘Authentic

leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure’, Journal of

Management, 34(1), 89-126.

Wang, A., and B. Cheng: 2009, ‘When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity?

The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy’, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31, 106-121.

White, J.: 1999, ‘Ethical Comportment in Organizations: A Synthesis of the Feminist Ethic of

Care and the Buddhist Ethic of Compassion’, International Journal of Value - Based

Management, 12(2), 109-128.

Yunus, M. 2007, Creating a world without poverty: Social Business and the future of

capitalism, Philadelpia, PA: Penguin Books.

Zuboff, S. 2009, ‘The Old Solutions Have Become the New Problems’, Business Week. July

2009.

48


FIGURE 1: BENEVOLENT LEADERSHIP AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

Relevant core dimensions and leader attributes

Ethical Leadership

Spiritual Leadership

Authentic Leadership

Servant Leadership

Benevolent Leadership

Ethical sensitivity √ √

Spiritual depth √ √

Positive engagement √ √

Community responsiveness √ √

Calling √ √ √

Integrity √ √ √ √ √

Self-awareness √ √ √ √

Hope √ √ √

Stewardship √ √

Wisdom √ √ √

49

49


FIGURE 2: BRIDGING FOUR STREAMS OF COMMON GOOD

MORALITY STREAM SPIRITUALITY

STREAM

POSITIVITY STREAM COMMUNITY

STREAM

Anchor/

Integrative

characteristic

ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SPIRITUAL DEPTH POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY

RESPONSIVENESS

Related

literatures,

models,

movements,

approaches

Values in management

Business ethics

Virtuousness

Management by

values/virtues

Management, spirituality

and religion,

Reflection, inspiration,

Integral philosophy

Spirituality at work

Appreciative Inquiry

Positive organizational

scholarship

Positive psychology

Corporate social

responsibility

Organizational citizenship

behavior

Business as an Agent of

World Benefit

Essential

concepts

Morality, integrity, virtues,

trust, honesty

Awareness, calling,

reflection, wisdom,

transcendence

Positive deviance, thriving,

vitality, hope

Sustainability, corporate

citizenship, contribution

Ideal profile/ Virtuousness Depth Hope Stewardship

50

50


leadership

strength

Modesty

Groundedness

Honesty

Meaning

Sincerity

Sensitivity

Morale

Courage

Healing

Service

Generosity

Sense of community

Main

problems/gaps/

necessity

ATROPHY:

Corporate scandals, bad

apples, corruption,

unethical practices,

indifference, cynicism,

egoism, erosion of values

APATHY:

Excessive materialism,

positivism, loss of

meaning, stress, isolation,

fear, barren workplaces

LETHARGY:

Bureaucracy, static, entropy,

resistance to change,

reductionism,

compartmentalization, loss of

perspective

ENTROPY

Environmental problems,

inequity, social problems,

harm to society

Motto Walk the talk

Do what you want to be

done unto you

Be self-aware

Create meaning

Initiate and catalyze change

See the big picture

Serve community

Contribute to society

51

51

the role of benevolent leadership in … · web viewtitle the role of benevolent leadership in...

Documents